Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Excessive personal freedom hurts public good
By Greg Cusack |
October 25, 2010, Monday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
ON October 19, the Shanghai Daily reported on the Communist Party of China's proposed new five-year plan. Personally, I found it inspiring!
"Party leaders," you reported, "vowed more balanced income distribution, improved health care and a stronger social welfare net so citizens could feel more confident about spending savings."
In today's America, you would strain in vain to hear any such over-riding, community-embracing goals being advanced as goals for our country.
Rather, we are full of self-righteous, ego-inflated people who suggest that our principal focus should be on restraining government at all levels and in all ways.
After all, is it not obvious that individual goal setting, free of government interference, is not the ultimate good?
One of the greatest contributions your fine newspaper has given me is the news from, and perspective of, another culture.
The world is not just as the America right wing would portray it, nor is their point of view the only possible one.
As a young person I was inspired by the long-term goals proposed by then-presidents Eisenhower (beware of the "military-industrial complex"), Kennedy (the space program and getting "the country moving again") and Johnson (equality for all, renewed focus on the poor, the sick and elderly).
How I long for those days.
In the United States the conversation over whether government planning had a role in our society and economy has long been over: the winner, hands down - letting an "unfettered market do its thing."
However, not for the first time, I wonder!
Utilizing planning
First, there is the important difference between a "planned" economy and an economy utilizing planning.
An economy totally controlled by any sector, whether by a government, a church, or powerful private interests is not, in my opinion, at all desirable.
On the other hand, burying one's head in the sand and not attempting to best prepare for possible futures is demonstrably stupid.
Second, it seems to me that China's economy continues to evolve with greater non-government enterprises but with a strong, continuing oversight and long-term steering towards national goals by the Party.
As your paper faithfully reports, such efforts are not without difficulties (and how could they be?). Graft and corruption are not just the problem of capitalist societies; rather, such are endemic to human nature.
Too, the pursuit of individual wealth over and above the good of the many is also part of an unbalanced personal (and societal) ethic, wherein the ancient teachings of stewardship and mutuality are ignored. Nonetheless, China's economic, social and political advances are most impressive and worthy of study.
Third, when I reflect on America's greatest moments, it was not the times when private interests were left unchecked to pursue their own interests. Rather, it was when the collective good was both sought and voiced by the various levels of government throughout our Republic.
None of the great achievements of the 20th century in America could (or would) have happened without the leadership of government: adequate pensions for the elderly, disability programs for the maimed or feeble, civil rights for all, protective efforts toward the environment, and the pursuit - however haltingly - of world collective action over individual states' interests.
Worshiping the market
Sadly, American citizens are often ill schooled in their own history and political evolution, let alone knowledgeable of the struggles and achievements of other peoples and cultures.
The right wing in the United States has formed a dismally successful narrative explaining current woes and proposed "solutions" that go back to the same failed paths of the past: shrink government (thereby stopping "interference" in the right of individuals, no matter how wealthy, to pursue their own selfish interests), cut taxes (no matter how many suffer in poverty or unemployment), and unleash the "power of the market place."
The latter presumably means more of the "same" we have seen in recent years: obscene salaries and bonuses for those who produce nothing (as in financial speculators); more short-term focus on immediate profits, despite the impact upon workers or the larger society; and the glorification of what unrestrained capitalism can achieve.
Risk for the benefit of the many, rather than the few, is seldom "profitable" in terms of just money; only government and other inclusive institutions can pursue such.
Unless the appetite of the few is curbed, their bloated profits directed in part to the needs of the country as a whole, the future of the United States will not be one other peoples will try to emulate.
Where do we want to be in 20, 30, and 50 years? What kind of world do we want to leave our children? What kind of environment? What kind of legacy regarding peace or war?
Only thoughtful, inclusive discussions and planning can answer those vital questions.
Despite its many problems and as yet unresolved issues, China, bravo!
(The author was a member of the Iowa state House of Representatives. He also served in the Iowa executive branch. He retired in 2004.)
"Party leaders," you reported, "vowed more balanced income distribution, improved health care and a stronger social welfare net so citizens could feel more confident about spending savings."
In today's America, you would strain in vain to hear any such over-riding, community-embracing goals being advanced as goals for our country.
Rather, we are full of self-righteous, ego-inflated people who suggest that our principal focus should be on restraining government at all levels and in all ways.
After all, is it not obvious that individual goal setting, free of government interference, is not the ultimate good?
One of the greatest contributions your fine newspaper has given me is the news from, and perspective of, another culture.
The world is not just as the America right wing would portray it, nor is their point of view the only possible one.
As a young person I was inspired by the long-term goals proposed by then-presidents Eisenhower (beware of the "military-industrial complex"), Kennedy (the space program and getting "the country moving again") and Johnson (equality for all, renewed focus on the poor, the sick and elderly).
How I long for those days.
In the United States the conversation over whether government planning had a role in our society and economy has long been over: the winner, hands down - letting an "unfettered market do its thing."
However, not for the first time, I wonder!
Utilizing planning
First, there is the important difference between a "planned" economy and an economy utilizing planning.
An economy totally controlled by any sector, whether by a government, a church, or powerful private interests is not, in my opinion, at all desirable.
On the other hand, burying one's head in the sand and not attempting to best prepare for possible futures is demonstrably stupid.
Second, it seems to me that China's economy continues to evolve with greater non-government enterprises but with a strong, continuing oversight and long-term steering towards national goals by the Party.
As your paper faithfully reports, such efforts are not without difficulties (and how could they be?). Graft and corruption are not just the problem of capitalist societies; rather, such are endemic to human nature.
Too, the pursuit of individual wealth over and above the good of the many is also part of an unbalanced personal (and societal) ethic, wherein the ancient teachings of stewardship and mutuality are ignored. Nonetheless, China's economic, social and political advances are most impressive and worthy of study.
Third, when I reflect on America's greatest moments, it was not the times when private interests were left unchecked to pursue their own interests. Rather, it was when the collective good was both sought and voiced by the various levels of government throughout our Republic.
None of the great achievements of the 20th century in America could (or would) have happened without the leadership of government: adequate pensions for the elderly, disability programs for the maimed or feeble, civil rights for all, protective efforts toward the environment, and the pursuit - however haltingly - of world collective action over individual states' interests.
Worshiping the market
Sadly, American citizens are often ill schooled in their own history and political evolution, let alone knowledgeable of the struggles and achievements of other peoples and cultures.
The right wing in the United States has formed a dismally successful narrative explaining current woes and proposed "solutions" that go back to the same failed paths of the past: shrink government (thereby stopping "interference" in the right of individuals, no matter how wealthy, to pursue their own selfish interests), cut taxes (no matter how many suffer in poverty or unemployment), and unleash the "power of the market place."
The latter presumably means more of the "same" we have seen in recent years: obscene salaries and bonuses for those who produce nothing (as in financial speculators); more short-term focus on immediate profits, despite the impact upon workers or the larger society; and the glorification of what unrestrained capitalism can achieve.
Risk for the benefit of the many, rather than the few, is seldom "profitable" in terms of just money; only government and other inclusive institutions can pursue such.
Unless the appetite of the few is curbed, their bloated profits directed in part to the needs of the country as a whole, the future of the United States will not be one other peoples will try to emulate.
Where do we want to be in 20, 30, and 50 years? What kind of world do we want to leave our children? What kind of environment? What kind of legacy regarding peace or war?
Only thoughtful, inclusive discussions and planning can answer those vital questions.
Despite its many problems and as yet unresolved issues, China, bravo!
(The author was a member of the Iowa state House of Representatives. He also served in the Iowa executive branch. He retired in 2004.)
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
